Positive Behavioral Supports 1

Running Head: Positive Behavioral Supports

School Wide Positive Behavioral Supports

Jeffrey R. Sprague and Robert H. Horner
University of Oregon
Jsprague56@uoregon.edu

Chapter in press;

The Handbook of School Violence and School Safety:

From Research to Practice

Edited by Shane R. Jimerson and Michael J. Furlong

Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Mahwah, New Jersey

Jeffrey Sprague and Robert Horner. Do not distribute without permission.

 Positive Behavioral Supports 2

To prevent minor, as well as serious, antisocial behavior, educators are turning to a

comprehensive and proactive approach to discipline commonly referred to as School Wide
Positive Behavior Support (SWPBS) (Osher, Dwyer, & Jackson, 2002; Sprague & Golly, in
press ; Gresham, Sugai, & Horner, 2001). SWPBS is based on the assumption that when faculty
and staff in a school actively teach and acknowledge expected behavior, the proportion of
students with serious behavior problems will be reduced and the school’s overall climate will
improve (Colvin, Kame’enui, & Sugai, 1993; Sugai & Horner, 2002; Sugai et al., 2000).
The procedures that define SWPBS are organized around three main themes: Prevention;
Multi-Tiered Support; and Data-based Decision Making. Investing in prevention of problem
behavior involves (a) defining and teaching core behavioral expectations, (b) acknowledging and
rewarding appropriate behavior (e.g., compliance to school rules, safe and respectful peer to peer
interactions, academic effort/engagement), and (c) establishing a consistent continuum of
consequences for problem behavior. The focus is on establishing a positive social climate in
which behavioral expectations for students are highly predictable, directly taught, consistently
acknowledged, and actively monitored.
Multi-tiered support is available beyond the prevention level for those students with at-
risk and antisocial behavior. The greater the student’s need for support the more intense the
support provided. Within the SWPBS approach, emphasis has been on using the principles and
procedures of behavior analysis as a foundation for defining behavioral challenges, completing
functional behavioral assessments, and using these assessments, in conjunction with person-
centered planning, to design effective and efficient procedures for addressing patterns of
unacceptable behavior.
Data-based decision-making is a theme that is interwoven throughout SWPBS, and builds
on the assumption that the faculty, staff, family and students will be most effective in the design
of preventive and reactive supports if they have access to regular, accurate information about the
behavior of students. The value of data for decision-making is emphasized for both the design
of initial supports, and the on-going assessment and adaptation of support strategies. The
SWPBS approach includes adoption of practical strategies for collecting, summarizing, reporting
and using data on regular cycles.
Evidence suggests that sustained use of SWPBS practices can alter the trajectory of at-
risk children toward destructive outcomes, and prevent the onset of risk behavior in typically
developing children. It is expected that effective and sustained implementation of SWPBS will
create a more responsive school climate that supports the twin goals of schooling for all children:
academic achievement and social development (Horner, Sugai, Todd, & Lewis-Palmer, in press;
Walker et al., 1996).
Implementing and sustaining an organized, school-wide system for behavior support and
teaching social behavior is the foundation for effective prevention. In addition to the direct
benefit it has on student behavior in school, such a system creates the context for school-based
efforts to support effective parenting. When school personnel have a shared vision of the kind of
social behavior they want to promote among students and a shared understanding of the type of
social environment that is needed to achieve such behavior, they are in a position to inform and
support families in creating the same kind of supportive environment at home. When educators
are clear about how to use rules, positive reinforcement, and mild, consistent negative
consequences to support behavioral development, they are better able to coordinate their efforts
with those of parents. As a result, parents will know more about their children’s behavior in

Jeffrey Sprague and Robert Horner. Do not distribute without permission.

 Positive Behavioral Supports 3

school and will be able to provide the same supports and consequences that the school is
providing.
As of 2005, over 2700 schools across the country are actively implementing SWPBS.
These schools are reporting reductions in problem behavior, improved perceptions of school
safety, and improved academic outcomes (Horner et al., in press). This chapter describes how to
establish and implement a school-wide positive behavior support system. To first establish the
context in which SWPBS is being adopted, we begin by framing the challenge that antisocial
behavior presents in schools.
The Challenge of Antisocial Behavior in Schools
Schools in the United States are responding to increasingly serious problem behaviors
(e.g., bullying, harassment, victimization, drug and alcohol abuse, the effects of family
disruption, poverty) (Kingery, 1999). These problem behaviors, and their related challenges (the
effects of family disruption, poverty) have created fears about the personal safety of students,
teachers, parents, and community members that are very real and need to be addressed in every
school.
While most schools in the U.S. are relatively safe places for children, youth, and the
adults who teach and support them (U.S. Departments of Justice and Education, 1999, 2000), it
also is true that some schools have serious antisocial behavior and violence problems. No school
is immune from challenging behaviors and the potential for violence. They exist in every school
and community, and they always will. The extent of the challenge will vary in intensity and
frequency across schools, and the onset and development of antisocial behavior are associated
with a variety of school, community, and family risk factors (Sprague, Walker, Sowards, Van
Bloem, Eberhardt & Marshall, 2002; Walker & Sylwester, 1991). The challenge is to reduce the
frequency and intensity of these problems, and sustain behavioral gains over time.
The social problems noted above compete directly with the instructional mission of
schools. The result is decreased academic achievement and a lower quality of life for students
and staff alike. The National Educational Goals Panel Report (U.S. Department of Education,
1998, 2000) lists five essential areas in which national school performance has declined: (a)
reading achievement at grade 12 has decreased (Goal 3); (b) student drug use has increased
(Goal 7); (c) sale of drugs at school in grades 8, 10, and 12 has increased; (d) threats and injuries
to public school teachers have increased (Goal 7); and (e) more teachers are reporting that
disruptions in their classroom interfere with their teaching (Goal 7). These outcomes illustrate
the clear link between declining school climate, school violence, and academic achievement. It is
not possible to achieve national educational goals and meaningful reform without addressing
these disturbing conditions (Elias, Zins, Graczyk, & Weissberg, 2003).
School practices contribute to the problem. Many school practices contribute to the
development and prevalence of antisocial behavior and the potential for violence. Because of the
nearly exclusive emphasis on detecting individual child or youth characteristics that predict
antisocial behavior and violence, many important systemic variables are often overlooked as
contributors (Colvin, Kame’enui, & Sugai, 1993; Hawkins, Catalano, Kosterman, Abbott, &
Hill, 1999); Mayer, 1995; Walker & Eaton-Walker, 2000; Walker et al., 1996). These include,
among others:
1. ineffective instruction that results in academic failure;
2. failure to individualize instruction and support to adapt to individual differences (e.g.,
ethnic and cultural differences, gender, disability);
3. disagreement and inconsistency of implementation among staff members;

Jeffrey Sprague and Robert Horner. Do not distribute without permission.

 Positive Behavioral Supports 4

4. lack of administrator involvement, leadership and support;

5. inconsistent and punitive classroom and behavior management practices;
6. unclear rules and expectations regarding appropriate behavior;
7. failure to reward compliance to school behavior expectations;
8. lack of opportunity to learn and practice prosocial interpersonal and self-management
skills; and
9. failure to assist students from at-risk (e.g., poverty, racial/ethnic minority members)
backgrounds to bond with the schooling process.
Common response to behavioral problems: Turn to office referrals, suspensions and
expulsions! Often when a student misbehaves, the first line of response involves increasing
monitoring and supervision of the student, restating rules, and delivering sanctions (e.g., referrals
to the office, out of school suspension, and/or loss of privileges). The administrator may come to
a point of frustration and attempt to establish a “bottom line” for disruptive students (usually
referral or suspension). Unfortunately, these “get tough” responses produce immediate, short-
lived relief for the school but do not facilitate the progress of the student who may already be
disengaged from the schooling process.
Paradoxically, while punishment practices may appear to “work” in the short term, they
may merely remove the student for a period of time, thus providing a brief respite. All too often,
these practices also can lead some to assign exclusive responsibility for positive change to the
student or family and thereby prevent meaningful school engagement and development of
solutions. The use of sanctions, without an accompanying program of teaching and recognition
for expected positive behavior, may merely displace the problem elsewhere (to the home or the
community). There is little evidence of the long-term effect of these practices in reducing
antisocial behavior (Irvin, Tobin, Sprague, Sugai, & Vincent, 2004; Skiba & Peterson, 1999). In
fact, evidence suggests that schools using punishment practices alone promote more antisocial
behavior than those with a firm, but fair discipline system (Mayer, 1995; Skiba & Peterson,
1999). Research shows clearly that schools using only punishment techniques tend to have
increased rates of vandalism, aggression, truancy, and ultimately school dropout (Mayer, 1995).
For students with chronic problem behavior these negative practices are more likely to
impair child-adult relationships and attachment to schooling rather than reduce the likelihood of
problem behavior. Punishment alone, without a balance of support and efforts to restore school
engagement, weakens academic outcomes and maintains the antisocial trajectory of at risk
students. Instead, the discipline process should help students accept responsibility, place high
value on academic engagement and achievement, teach alternative ways to behave, and focus on
restoring a positive environment and social relationships in the school.
If not punishment, then what is the solution? Schools can serve as an ideal setting to
organize efforts against the increasing problems of children and youth who display antisocial
behavior patterns (Mayer, 1995; Sugai & Horner, 1994; Walker et al., 1996). This practice is
sustained by a tendency to try to eliminate the presenting problem quickly by removing the
student via suspension or expulsion, or fix a “within-child” deficit rather than focus on the
administrative, teaching and management practices that either contribute to or reduce them
(Tobin, Sugai, & Martin, 2000).
Conceptual Basis for School Wide Positive Behavior Supports
A solid research base exists to guide an analysis of the administrative, teaching, and
management practices in a school and design alternatives to ineffective approaches. An
important theme from this research is that no single intervention practice should be viewed as

Jeffrey Sprague and Robert Horner. Do not distribute without permission.

 Positive Behavioral Supports 5

meeting all the behavioral challenges in schools. Student behavior is complex and influenced by
many variables within the school, within the family/community, and within the student. The
behavior support strategies needed to establish a school-wide social culture need to be
supplemented with classroom interventions and individualized supports for students with chronic
and intense patterns of problem behavior. The range of student behavior support needs requires
that interventions target both school-wide and individual student support strategies. Educators in
today’s schools and classrooms must be supported to adopt and sustain effective; cost-efficient
practices in this regard (Gottfredson, 1997; Gottfredson, Gottfredson, & Czeh, 2000; Walker et
al., 1996). A well-developed body of research evidence on school safety indicates that (a) early
identification and intervention with at-risk children in schools is feasible; (b) the risk of dropping
out of school, delinquency, violence and other adjustment problems is high unless these children
are helped; (c) academic recovery is difficult if early intervention is not provided; and (d)
universal interventions need to be combined with interventions targeted to specific problems
(Gottfredson, 2001; Tolan , Gorman-Smith, & Henry, 2001). Effective schools have shared
values regarding the school’s mission and purpose, carry out multiple activities designed to
promote prosocial behavior and connection to school traditions, and provide a caring nurturing
social climate involving collegial relationships among adults and students (Bryk & Driscoll,
1988; Gottfredson, Gottfredson & Czeh, 2000; Scott & Eber, 2003).
Changing school climate is an essential element. The biggest challenge schools face is
to enhance their overall capacity to create and sustain positive and behaviorally effective schools.
Schools should provide school wide positive behavior supports at the point of school entry and
continue implementing through high school (O’Donnell, Hawkins, Catalano, Abbott, & Day,
1995). It is never too late, nor never too early to support children and youth in our schools
(Loeber & Farrington, 1998). Research indicates that schools can create establish clear
expectations for learning and positive behavior, while providing firm but fair discipline.
Students will be more motivated if they are in environments that are perceived as safe, positive
and predictable. Increased motivation is associated with improved acquisition of skills that will
be of value for years following formal education (Katz, 1997).
Thus, the challenge becomes how to give schools the capacity to adopt and sustain the
processes, organizational structures, and systems that enable them to carry out these effective
interventions (Gottfredson, Gottfredson, & Czeh, 2000). The problem for schools is not the lack
of effective programs (those that work), but rather it is one of efficacy (helping typical schools
adopt and carry out effective interventions).

Where to start: No Child Left Behind Principles of effectiveness. Education

professionals may use the USDOE Office of Safe and Drug Free Schools “Principles of
Effectiveness” as an organizing framework for planning and implementing whole-school
approaches to safety and effectiveness. The principles recommend: (a) a local needs assessment
of the risk and protective factors affecting the school, families, and the community (including the
status of support systems); (b) establishment of measurable goals and objectives by the school
that are integrated with school improvement planning; (c) selection of research-based and
research-validated curricula and interventions; and (d) implementation of a comprehensive and
rigorous evaluation plan, which includes evaluation of inputs (resources, staff, materials),
outputs (actual costs, description of the process of implementation), outcomes (e.g., student
behavior change), and impact (overall satisfaction with project products and outcomes). In the

Jeffrey Sprague and Robert Horner. Do not distribute without permission.

 Positive Behavioral Supports 6

next section, School Wide PBS use and the Principles of Effectiveness as an organizing
framework are introduced.
Implementing School-Wide, Positive Behavior Supports
School-Wide Positive Behavior Support (SWPBS) is a systems-based approach that
promotes safe and orderly schools. Researchers at the University of Oregon (see Sprague, Sugai
& Walker, 1998; Sprague, Walker, Golly et al., 2002; Sugai & Horner, 1999; Taylor-Greene et
al., 1997, www.pbis.org ) have field-tested the efficacy of SWPBS approaches in reducing
school behavior problems and promoting a positive school climate. SWPBS is a multiple system
approach to addressing the problems posed by students displaying antisocial behaviors and
coping with challenging forms of student behavior. The key practices of SWPBS are:
• clear definitions of expected appropriate, positive behaviors are provided for students and
staff members;
• clear definitions of problem behaviors and their consequences are defined for students
and staff members;
• regularly scheduled instruction and assistance in desired positive social behaviors is
provided that enables students to acquire the necessary skills for the desired behavior
change;
• effective incentives and motivational systems are provided to encourage students to
behave differently;
• staff commits to staying with the intervention over the long term and to monitor, support,
coach, debrief, and provide booster lessons for students as necessary to maintain the
achieved gains;
• staff receives training, feedback and coaching about effective implementation of the
systems; and
• systems for measuring and monitoring the intervention’s effectiveness are established and
carried out.
Improving discipline is a priority. First, the improvement of school discipline should be
one of the top school improvement goals. With competing resources and goals, if work in this
area is not a priority, progress will be difficult.
Administrator leadership. Every school needs a principal committed to SWPBS
leadership and participation. In the absence of administrative leadership and district support (e.g.,
policy, fiscal) it will be difficult to effect broad-based changes. Hallinger and Heck (1998)
reviewed the evidence on the principal’s contribution to school effectiveness. They concluded
that principals exercise a measurable effect on schooling effectiveness and student achievement.
Kam, Greenberg, and Walls (2003), reported that the ability of principals to initiate and sustain
innovations in their schools is related to successful program implementation. The length of time
administrators have spent in the school setting and the leadership characteristics they show in
maintaining good relations with teachers, parents, school boards, site councils, and students also
are positively related to successful implementation outcomes. Gottfredson et al. (2000) and
Ingersoll (2001) showed that high levels of administrative support were also associated with
reduced staff turnover.
Commitment to participate by all or “most” adults in the school. It is important to
secure a commitment to implement the intervention by at least 80% of school staff. Some
schools have chosen to use a “vote” to assess this level of commitment. We have found a few
approaches that can move a group of colleagues toward program implementation (Embry, 2004).

Jeffrey Sprague and Robert Horner. Do not distribute without permission.

 Positive Behavioral Supports 7

• Talk about cost and benefit. All adults involved need to know the costs (time,
funds) and benefits of working to improve school discipline. For example,
presentations by school leaders on the anticipated effects of program adoption
(e.g., studies indicate that as discipline problems and referrals to the principal’s
office are dramatically reduced , teaching time is substantially increased [cites?]).
• Emphasize the long-term benefits. It also is useful to discuss the “higher good” of
prevention and how much your colleagues value such outcomes as better
academic achievement, prevention of alcohol, tobacco and other drug use, less
teacher stress, etc. These discussions may prove to be more powerful and
persuasive than simply appealing to authority or law (i.e.., we have to do it!).
• “Try before you buy.” School-wide PBS is comprised of many smaller techniques
(reward systems, teaching rules; Embry, 2004) that can be promoted as trial
products. You can ask innovators in your building to share their successes, or
arrange visits to schools that have already adopted SWPBS practices.
• “Go with the goers.” The practice is far more likely to be adopted if you
recognize and support people who get on board early, as well as encourage those
who are reluctant, or even resistant.
To begin your journey toward establishing a more effective school program, we
recommend that you begin by completing the needs assessment presented in Figure 1 (we
include only the school-wide section here). The “Assessing Behavior Support In Schools” survey
developed by George Sugai and his colleagues (Sugai, Lewis-Palmer, Todd, & Horner, 2000;
available for no charge at www.pbis.org ) proscribes the essential features of SWPBS at the
school-wide (Figure 1), common area, classroom, and individual student levels. The survey asks
respondents to reflect on whether the practice is in place in their school and to choose which
items are priorities for improvement. Your school behavior team will refer to these goals often,
and modify them as indicated by a review of key data regarding effectiveness (e.g., office
discipline referrals, rates of problem behavior on the playground).
---Insert Figure 1 Here---
Select evidence-based practices. The School-Wide Behavioral Support (SWPBS)
(Sprague, Sugai & Walker, 1998; Sugai & Horner, 1994) approach was developed at the
University of Oregon and the National Center on Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports
(www.pbis.org ) (an Office of Special Education Programs funded research center). The goal of
SWPBS is to facilitate the academic achievement and healthy social development of children and
youth in a safe environment conducive to learning. SWPBS involves providing embedded and
ongoing staff development and coaching aimed at improving school and classroom discipline
and associated outcomes such as school violence, and alcohol, tobacco and other drug use.
SWPBS includes intervention techniques based on over 30 years of rigorous research
regarding school discipline from education, public health, psychology, and criminology
disciplines. SWPBS components address whole-school, common area, classroom, and individual
student support practices and may be used in combination with other evidence-based prevention
programs such as the Second Step Violence Prevention Curriculum (Committee for Children,
2002). Representative school team members are trained to develop and implement positive
school rules, direct teaching of rules, positive reinforcement systems, data-based decision
making at the school level, effective classroom management methods, curriculum adaptation to
prevent problem behavior, and functional behavioral assessment and positive behavioral
intervention plans. Teams are also coached to integrate SWPBS systems with other prevention

Jeffrey Sprague and Robert Horner. Do not distribute without permission.

 Positive Behavioral Supports 8

programs to maximize effectiveness.

How is SWPBS implemented? The process for adopting and sustaining SWPBS revolves
around a school team typically composed of 5-10 individuals that includes an administrator,
representative faculty/staff, and local family/community members.\ While it may seem ideal to
train all school staff all the time, it will rarely be feasible or sustainable to provide training at this
level due to cost and logistical concerns. However, a representative group of adults, representing
all school stakeholders (including students at the secondary level) can learn the key practices of
SWPBS and set goals for improvement. The stakeholders can then function as leaders or coaches
as they inform their groups of the team activities (for example, at staff or area meetings) and give
support and encouragement during the improvement process. Increasingly, we see district- and
state-wide initiatives supporting the dissemination of SWPBS training and coaching systems.
While participating in training, and after mastery of the basic material, it is recommended
that school discipline teams (building administrator, representative teachers, and other
stakeholders) meet approximately once per month to review training content as needed and to set
up a regular process of reviewing and refining the school discipline plan (initial goals are
developed during training) and other, school site-based activities. A format for these meetings
should be specified and each meeting should last between 20-60 minutes.
Set and promote school wide expectations. A critical first task for the implementation
team is to establish school-wide behavior rule teaching related to student-teacher compliance,
peer-to-peer interaction, academic achievement, and academic study skills. Using the general
framework of “safety,” “respect,” and “responsibility” and directly teaching lessons throughout
the year to establish and maintain the patterns of behavior associated with these personal
qualities is recommended. In addition, posting the rules publicly in posters, school newsletters,
local media, announcements, assemblies, can be valuable..
Plan to recognize expected behavior and actively supervise students. The school will need
to establish a consistent system of enforcement, monitoring, and positive reinforcement to
enhance the effect of rule teaching and maintain patterns of desired student behavior.
Reinforcement systems may include school-wide token economies in the form of "tickets"
stating each school rule delivered by all adults in the building. These tokens are to be “backed
up” with weekly drawings and rewards for the teachers as well. Each school should implement
the procedures to fit their school improvement plan and specific discipline needs.
Define and effectively correct problem behaviors and their consequences for students
and staff members. As stated earlier, schools using excessive sanctions experience greater levels
of vandalism and other forms of misbehavior (Mayer, 1995; Skiba & Peterson, 1999). Positive
reinforcement is more effective than punishment because it does not result in the type of counter-
aggression and withdrawal (fight or flight) that punishment can produce and because it does not
focus teachers’ attention on detecting and correcting rule violations.
Students should see rules applied fairly. When they feel that rules are unevenly applied,
students are more likely to misbehave. Schools with clear rule and reward systems and business-
like corrections and sanctions also experience fewer problems. These schools signal appropriate
behavior for students and respond to misbehavior predictably. Students in such schools are clear
about expected behavior and learn there are consequences for misbehavior. When rules are
consistent, students develop a respect for rules and laws, and internalize beliefs that the system
of governance works (Bryk & Driscoll, 1988; Gottfredson, 1987; Gottfredson, Gottfredson, &
Hybl, 1993).

Jeffrey Sprague and Robert Horner. Do not distribute without permission.

 Positive Behavioral Supports 9

Report data for active decision-making. The efficiency of team problem solving is
enhanced by providing the team with data-based feedback to schools regarding their
implementation of basic SWPBS practices (c.f. “Assessing Behavior Support in Schools” survey
; Figure 1) and the impact of implementation on problem behavior as indexed by discipline
referral patterns (c.f. School-Wide Information System (SWIS); Sprague, Sugai, Horner, &
Walker, 1999; Sugai, Sprague, Horner, & Walker, 2000; www.swis.org ). The goal is to use
highly efficient data systems that allow teams to ask (a) are we implementing evidence-based,
SWPBS practices, and (b) are the practices having an effect on the behavior of students? Data
on implementation of SWPBS practices typically are collected, summarized and reported
quarterly, and data on student behavior are collected continuously, and reported to the school
team weekly, the school faculty monthly, and the school district annually. Irvin et al., (in press)
provide an evaluation documenting the value that regular access to student behavioral data has
for typical school teams.
Examples of data collection and display tools for assessing implementation of SWPBS
can be found on the internet at www.pbssurveys.org (Boland et al., 2004). Similarly, an example
of a web-based information system designed to help school personnel to use office referral data
to design schoolwide and individual student interventions is available at www.swis.org (May et
al., 2000). It is anticipated that as school-wide systems become more common an increasing
array of data collection options will become available to schools. A major focus for research on
educational systems-change lies in the process, and impact of providing teachers, administrators,
families and students with regular, accurate information for decision-making.
Implementing for Sustainability
Too often educational innovations, even effective innovations, have been implemented
but not maintained (Latham, 1988). If SWPBS is to result in educational change at a scale of
practical relevance, schools adopting SWPBS procedures will need to sustain the practices and
benefits. An important feature of the SWPBS approach is inclusion of formal strategies for
improving the likelihood of sustained implementation. These include (a) the development of
training materials at each school that make it “easier” to implement from year to year, (b) the
implementation of policies for using SWPBS, and reporting student data, and (c) the training of
district-level “coaches” who are available to provide booster training for school teams, initial
training for new faculty members, and help with problem solving around more intense
challenges. The district coaching role is designed to help a school team sustain effective
practices through periodic perturbations in the staffing, organization or fluctuation in student
behavior. The issue of sustaining educational innovation is not unique to SWPBS, and remains a
worthy focus for research.
What is the Evidence for SWPBS Effectiveness?
A number of researchers (see Embry & Flannery, 1994; Knoff & Batsche, 1995; Taylor-
Green et al., 1997) have studied SWPBS practices. The effects of the program are documented in
a series of studies implemented by researchers at the University of Oregon (Horner et al., in
press; Metzler , Biglan, Rusby, & Sprague 2001; Sprague, Walker, Golly et al., 2002; Taylor-
Greene et al., 1997, see also www.pbis.org for the latest research studies and reports). Studies
have shown reductions in office discipline referrals of up to 50% per year, with continued
improvement over a three-year period in schools that sustain the intervention (Irvin et al., 2004).
In addition, school staff report greater satisfaction with their work, compared to schools that did
not implement SWPBS. Comparison schools typically show increases or no change in office
referrals, along with a general frustration with the school discipline program.

Jeffrey Sprague and Robert Horner. Do not distribute without permission.

 Positive Behavioral Supports 10

In studies employing the SWPBS components, reductions in antisocial behavior (Sprague

et al., 2002), vandalism (Mayer, 1995), aggression (Grossman et al., 1997; Lewis , Sugai, &
Colvin, 1998), later delinquency (Kellam , Mayer, Rebok & Hawkins, 1998; O’Donnell et al.,
1995), as well as alcohol, tobacco and other drug use (Biglan , Wang, & Walberg, 2003;
O’Donnell et al., 1995) have been documented. Positive changes in protective factors such as
academic achievement (Kellam et al., 1998; O’Donnell et al., 1995) and school engagement
(O’Donnell et al., 1995) have been documented using a school-wide positive behavior support
approach such as SWPBS in concert with other prevention interventions.
Conclusion
We have described a school-wide system for positive behavior support, and the
implementation steps being used to build both a positive school-wide social culture, and the
capacity to support individual students with more intense behavioral needs. The major messages
are that (a) problem behavior in schools is both a significant social challenge and a barrier to
effective learning, (b) traditional “get tough” strategies have not proven effective, (c) the
foundation for all behavior support in schools begins with establishing a positive social culture
by defining, teaching and rewarding appropriate behaviors, (d) additional behavior support
procedures based on behavior analysis principles are needed for children with more intense
behavior support needs, and (e) school personnel are demonstrating both the ability to collect and
use quality improvement data systems, and the value of those systems for improving schools.
At this writing, randomized controlled research studies are in progress to examine the
effects of SWPBS with greater precision and control. Current evaluation results, however, are
encouraging. Schools throughout the country are demonstrating the ability to adopt SWPBS
practices with fidelity (Horner, Todd, Lewis-Palmer, Irvin, Sugai & Boland, 2004; Horner et al.,
in press). When schools adopt SWPBS practices they are reporting reductions in problem
behavior, improved perceptions of school safety, and improved academic performance. Recent
Illinois evaluations also report that schools establishing a positive social climate are proving
more effective in their implementation of individual, wrap-around support for students with high
behavior support needs.
The overall picture is encouraging. Schools are able to improve, and to demonstrate that
change is linked to valued student outcomes. If these gains are to become important at a national
scale, additional research is needed to demonstrate experimentally controlled effects, strategies
for improving efficiency, and strategies for supporting sustained implementation.

Jeffrey Sprague and Robert Horner. Do not distribute without permission.

 Positive Behavioral Supports 11

References
Biglan, A., Wang, M. C., & Walberg, H. J. (2003). Preventing Youth Problems. New York:
Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers.
Boland, J., Todd, A.W., Horner, R.H., & Sugai, G. (2005). Positive behavior support surveys.
Retrieved from http://www.pbssurveys.org on January 10, 2005.
Bryk, A. S., & Driscoll, M. E. (1988). The high school as community: contextual influences, and
consequences for students and teachers. Madison, WI: National Center on Effective
Secondary Schools: Wisconsin Center for Education Research, University of Wisconsin-
Madison.
Colvin, G., Kame'enui, E. J., & Sugai, G. (1993). School-wide and classroom management:
Reconceptualizing the integration and management of students with behavior problems in
general education. Education and Treatment of Children, 16, 361-381.
Committee for Children. (2002). Second step violence prevention curriculum. Seattle, WA:
Committee for Children.
Elias, M., Zins, J., Graczyk, P. & Weissberg, R. (2003). Implementation, sustainability, and
scaling up of social-emotional and academic innovations in public schools. School
Psychology Review 32,303-319.
Embry, D. D. (2004). Community-based prevention using simple, low-cost, evidence-based
kernels and behavior vaccines. Journal of Community Psychology 32(5), 575-591.
Embry, D. D., & Flannery, D. J. (1994). Peacebuilders—Reducing youth violence: A working
application of cognitive-social-imitative competence research. Tucson, AZ: Heartsprings,
Inc.
Gottfredson, G. (2001). Delinquency in schools. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Gottfredson, D. C. (1997). School-based crime prevention. In L. Sherman, D. Gottfredson, D.
Mackenzie, J. Eck, P. Reuter, & S. Bushway (Eds.), Preventing crime: What works, what
doesn't, what's promising (pp.xxx-xxx). College Park, MD: Department of Criminology
and Criminal Justice.
Gottfredson, D. C. (1987). Developing effective organizations to reduce school disorder. In O. C.
Moles (Ed.), Strategies to reduce student misbehavior (pp. 87-104). Washington, DC: Office
of Educational Research and Improvement.
Gottfredson, G., Gottfredson, D., & Czeh, E. (2000). National study of delinquency prevention in
schools. Ellicott City, MD: Gottfredson Associates, Inc.
Gottfredson, D. C., Gottfredson, G. D., & Hybl, L. G. (1993). Managing adolescent behavior: A
multiyear, multischool study. American Educational Research Journal, 30, 179-215.
Grossman, D. C., Neckerman, H. J., Joepsell, T. D., Liu, P., Asher, K. N., Beland, K., Frey, K.,
& Rivara, F. P. (1997). Effectiveness of a violence prevention curriculum among children
in elementary school. Journal of the American Medical Association, 277, 1605-1611.
Greenberg, M. T., Domitrovich, C., & Bumbarger, B. (1999) Preventing mental disorders in
school-age children: A review of the effectiveness of prevention programs (Report
submitted to Center for Mental Health Services, Substance Abuse Mental Health Services
Administration). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. [not
cited in text—DELETE?]
Gresham, F. M., Sugai, G., & Horner, R.H. (2001). Interpreting outcomes of social skills
training for students with high-incidence disabilities. Exceptional Children, 67(3), 331-
344.

Jeffrey Sprague and Robert Horner. Do not distribute without permission.

 Positive Behavioral Supports 12

Hallinger, P., & Heck, R. H. (1998). Exploring the principal's contribution to school
effectiveness: 1980-1995. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 9, 157-191.
Hawkins, J. D., Catalano, R. F., Kosterman, R., Abbott, R., & Hill, K. G. (1999). Preventing
adolescent health-risk behaviors by strengthening protection during childhood. Archives
of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine, 153, 226-234.
Horner, R., & Sugai, G. (2000). School-wide behavior support: An emerging initiative. Journal
of Positive Behavior Interventions 2(4), 231-232. [not cited in text – DELETE?]
Horner, R.H., Sugai, G., Todd, A.W., & Lewis-Palmer, T. (in press). School-wide positive
behavior support: An alternative approach to discipline in schools. In L. Bambara & L.
Kern (Eds.) Individualized supports for students with problem behaviors: Designing
positive behavior plans. New York: Guilford Press.
Horner, R.H., Todd, A.W., Lewis-Palmer, T., Irvin, L.K., Sugai, G., & Boland, J.B. (2004). The
school-wide evaluation tool (SET): A research instrument for assessing school-wide
positive behavior support. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 6(1), 3-12.
Ingersoll, R. M. (2001). Teacher turnover and teacher shortages: An organizational analysis.
American Educational Research Journal, 38, 499-534 .
Irvin, L.K., Horner, R.H., Ingram, K., Todd, A.W., Sugai, G., Sampson, N.K., Boland, J. (in
press). Using office discipline referral for decision-making about student behavior in
elementary and middle schools: An empirical evaluation of validity. Journal of Positive
Behavior Interventions.
Irvin, L. K., Tobin, T. J., Sprague, J. R., & Vincent, C. G. (2004). Validity of office discipline
referrals measures as indices of school-wide behavioral status and effects of school-wide
behavioral interventions. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions 6(3), 131-147.
Kam, C. M., Greenberg, M. T., & Walls, C. T. (2003). Examining the role of implementation
quality in school-based prevention using the PATHS curriculum. Prevention Science, 4,
55-63.
Katz, M. (1997) On playing a poor hand well: Insights from the lives of those who have
overcome childhood risks and adversities. New York: Norton.
Kellam, S. G., Mayer, L. S., Rebok, G. W., & Hawkins, W. E. (1998). Effects of improving
achievement on aggressive behavior and of improving aggressive behavior on
achievement through two preventive interventions: An investigation of causal paths. In B.
P. Dohrenwend et al. (Eds.), Adversity, stress, and psychopathology (pp. 486-505). New
York: Oxford University Press.
Kingery, P. (1999). Suspensions and expulsions: New directions. In The Hamilton-Fish
National Institute on School and Community Violence, Effective violence prevention
programs. Washington, DC: George Washington University.
Knoff, H. M., & Batsche, G. M. (1995). Project ACHIEVE: Analyzing a school reform process
for at-risk and underachieving students. School Psychology Review, 24, 579-603.
Latham, G.I. (1988). The birth and death cycles of educational innovations. Principal, 68 (1), 41-
44.
Lewis, T. J., Sugai, G., & Colvin, G. (1998). Reducing problem behavior through a school-side
system of effective behavioral support: Investigation of a school-wide social skills
training program and contextual interventions. School Psychology Review, 27, 446-459.
Loeber, R., & Farrington, D. P. (1998). Serious and violent juvenile offenders: Risk factors and
successful interventions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Jeffrey Sprague and Robert Horner. Do not distribute without permission.

 Positive Behavioral Supports 13

May, S., Ard, W. III., Todd, A.W., Horner, R.H., Glasgow, A., Sugai, G., & Sprague, J.R.
(2000). School-wide Information System. Educational and Community Supports,
University of Oregon, Eugene, Oregon.
Mayer, G. R. (1995). Preventing antisocial behavior in the schools. Journal of Applied Behavior
Analysis, 28, 467-478.
Metzler, C. W., Biglan, A., Rusby, J. C., & Sprague, J. R. (2001). Evaluation of a comprehensive
behavior management program to improve school-wide positive behavior support.
Education and Treatment of Children, 24, 448-479.
O’Donnell, J., Hawkins, J., Catalano, R., Abbott, R., & Day, L. (1995). Preventing school
failure, drug use, and delinquency among low-income children: long-term intervention in
elementary schools. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 65, 87-100.
Osher, D., Dwyer, K., & Jackson, S. (2002). Safe, supportive and successful schools: Step by
step. Longmont, CO: Sopris West.
Scott, T. M., & Eber, L. (2003). Functional assessment and wraparound as systemic school
processes: Primary, secondary, and tertiary systems examples. Journal of Positive
Behavior Interventions, 5, 131-143.
Skiba, R., & Peterson, R. (1999). School discipline at a crossroads: From zero tolerance to early
reponse. Exceptional Children 66(3), 335-346.
Sprague & Golly (2004). Best behavior: Building positive behavior supports in schools.
Longmont, CO: Sopris West .
Sprague, J. R., Sugai, G., Horner, R. H., & Walker, H. M. (1999). Using office discipline referral
data to evaluate school-wide discipline and violence prevention interventions. Oregon
School Study Council Bulletin, 42(2). Eugene, OR: University of Oregon, College of
Education.
Sprague, J. R., Sugai, G., & Walker, H. (1998). Antisocial behavior in schools. In T. S. Watson
& F. M. Gresham (Eds.), Handbook of child behavior therapy (pp. 451-474). New York:
Plenum.
Sprague, J., Walker, H., Golly, A., White, K., Myers, D. R., & Shannon, T. (2002). Translating
research into effective practice: The effects of a universal staff and student intervention
on key indicators of school safety and discipline. Education and Treatment of Children,
23. PAGES
Sprague, J., Walker, H., Sowards, S., Van Bloem, C., Eberhardt, P., & Marshall, B. (2002).
Sources of vulnerability to school violence: Systems-level assessment and Strategies to
Improve Safety and Climate. In M. R. Shinn, G. Stoner, & H. M. Walker (Eds.),
Interventions for academic and behavior problems II: Preventive and remedial
approaches (2nd ed., pp. 295-314) INCOMPLETE PLEASE ADD THE PUBLISHER
INFORMATION
Sugai, G., & Horner, R. (1994). Including students with severe behavior problems in general
education settings: Assumptions, challenges, and solutions. Oregon Conference
Monograph, 6, 102-120.
Sugai, G., & Horner, R. H. (1999). Discipline and behavioral support: Preferred processes and
practices. Effective School Practices, 17, 10-22.
Sugai, G., & Horner, R.H. (2002). The evolution of discipline practices: School-wide positive
behavior supports. Child & Family Behavior Therapy 24(1/2), 23-50.
Sugai, G., Horner, R. H., Dunlap, G. Hieneman, M., Lewis, T. J., Nelson, C. M., Scott, T.,
Liaupsin, C., Sailor, W., Turnbull, A. P., Turnbull, H. R., III, Wickham, D. Reuf, M., &

Jeffrey Sprague and Robert Horner. Do not distribute without permission.

 Positive Behavioral Supports 14

Wilcox, B. (2000). Applying positive behavioral support and functional behavioral

assessment in schools. Journal of Positive Behavioral Interventions, 2, 131-143.
Sugai, G., Lewis-Palmer, T., Todd, A., & Horner, R. (2000). Effective Behavior Support (EBS)
survey: Assessing and planning behavior support in schools. Eugene, OR: University of
Oregon.
Sugai, G., Sprague, J. R., Horner, R. H., & Walker, H. M. (2000). Preventing school violence:
The use of office discipline referrals to assess and monitor school-wide discipline
interventions. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 8, 94-101.
Taylor-Greene, S., Brown, D., Nelson, L., Longton, J., Gassman, T., Cohen, J., Swartz, J.,
Horner, R. H., Sugai, G., & Hall, S. (1997). School-wide behavioral support: Starting the
year off right. Journal of Behavioral Education, 7, 99-112.
Tobin, T., Sugai, G., & Martin, E. (2000). Final report for Project CREDENTIALS: Current
research on educational endeavors to increase at-risk learners’ success (Report
submitted to the Office of Professional Technical Education, Oregon Department of
Education). Eugene, OR: University of Oregon, College of Education, Behavioral
Research and Teaching.
Tolan, P., Gorman-Smith, D., & Henry, D. (2001). New study to focus on efficacy of “whole
school” prevention approaches. Emotional & Behavioral Disorders in Youth. 2, 5-7.
U.S. Departments of Justice and Education. (1998). First Annual Report on School Safety.
Washington, DC: Author.
U.S. Departments of Justice and Education. (1999). Annual Report on School Safety.
Washington, DC: Author.
U.S. Departments of Justice and Education. (2000). Annual Report on School Safety.
Washington, DC: Author.
Walker, H. M., & Eaton-Walker, J. (2000). Key questions about school safety: Critical issues
and recommended solutions. NASSP Bulletin (National Association of Secondary School
Principals), March, 46-55.
Walker, H. M., Horner, R. H., Sugai, G., Bullis, M., Sprague, J. R., Bricker, D., & Kaufman, M.
J. (1996). Integrated approaches to preventing antisocial behavior patterns among school
age children and youth. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, Volume 4, 194-
209.
Walker, H. M., & Sylwester, R. (1991). Where is school along the path to prison? Educational
Leadership, 49, 14-16.

Jeffrey Sprague and Robert Horner. Do not distribute without permission.

 Positive Behavioral Supports 15

Table 1.
What does School Wide PBS look like?
• Train and support a representative school team (20-30 hours of formal training)
ƒ Principal actively leads and facilitates the process
ƒ Take time to plan, coach and continuously improve
• Set and promote school wide expectations
ƒ Plan to teach expected behavior
ƒ Plan to recognize expected behavior and actively supervise
• Use performance-based data for active decision-making
ƒ Office discipline referral patterns (www.swis.org)
ƒ Discipline survey results
ƒ Changes in academic performance, attendance
ƒ Student safety surveys
• How do I know it’s working?
ƒ Expected behaviors taught 20+ times/year
ƒ Students actively supervised in all school areas
ƒ Students acknowledged frequently for expected behavior
ƒ 4:1 positive : negative interactions
ƒ >80% students & adults can describe school-wide expectations
• Safe, respectful, responsible

Jeffrey Sprague and Robert Horner. Do not distribute without permission.

 Positive Behavioral Supports 16

Figure 1: Sample needs assessment for planning and evaluating SWPBS

Effective Behavior Support (EBS) Survey

Assessing and Planning Behavior Support in Schools

Name of school Date

District State

Person Completing the Survey:

w Administrator w Special Educator w Parent/Family member

w General Educator w Counselor w School Psychologist
w Educational/Teacher Assistant w Community member w Other

1. Complete the survey independently.

2. Schedule 20-30 minutes to complete the survey.

3. Base your rating on your individual experiences in the school. If you do not work in
classrooms, answer questions that are applicable to you.

To assess behavior support, first evaluate the status of each system feature (i.e. in place,
partially in place, not in place) (left hand side of survey). Next, examine each feature:

a. “What is the current status of this feature (i.e. in place, partially in place, not in
place)?”

b. For those features rated as partially in place or not in place, “What is the priority
for improvement for this feature (i.e., high, medium, low)?”

4. Return your completed survey to by .

Jeffrey Sprague and Robert Horner. Do not distribute without permission.

 Positive Behavioral Supports 17

SCHOOL-WIDE SYSTEMS

Current Status Feature Priority for Improvement

In Partial Not in School-wide is defined as involving all High Med Low

Place in Place students, all staff, & all settings.
Place

1. A small number (e.g. 3-5) of positively

& clearly stated student expectations or
rules are defined.

2. Expected student behaviors are taught

directly.

3. Expected student behaviors are

rewarded regularly.

4. Problem behaviors (failure to meet

expected student behaviors) are defined
clearly.

5. Consequences for problem behaviors

are defined clearly.

6. Distinctions between office vs.

classroom managed problem behaviors
are clear.

7. Options exist to allow classroom

instruction to continue when problem
behavior occurs.

8. Procedures are in place to address

emergency/dangerous situations.

9. A team exists for behavior support

planning & problem solving.

10. School administrator is an active

participant on the behavior support team.

11. Data on problem behavior patterns

Jeffrey Sprague and Robert Horner. Do not distribute without permission.

 Positive Behavioral Supports 18

Current Status Feature Priority for Improvement

In Partial Not in School-wide is defined as involving all High Med Low

Place in Place students, all staff, & all settings.
Place
are collected and summarized within an
on-going system.

12. Patterns of student problem behavior

are reported to teams and faculty for
active decision-making on a regular basis
(e.g. monthly).

13. School has formal strategies for

informing families about expected
student behaviors at school.

14. Booster training activities for students

are developed, modified, & conducted
based on school data.

15. School-wide behavior support team

has a budget for (a) teaching students, (b)
on-going rewards, and (c) annual staff
planning.

16. All staff are involved directly and/or

indirectly in school-wide interventions.

17. The school team has access to on-

going training and support from district
personnel.

18. The school is required by the district

to report on the social climate, discipline
level or student behavior at least
annually.

Name of School ____________________________________________

Date ______________

Jeffrey Sprague and Robert Horner. Do not distribute without permission.

 Positive Behavioral Supports 19

Table 2.
Implications for Practice: What Educational Professionals Should Do to Enhance Social and
Behavioral Competence in Schools?

• Systematically assess the nature, prevalence and effects of antisocial behavior in one’s
school, using office discipline referral patterns, and other sources of data.
• Share the findings with members of the school community in order to raise awareness of
the prevalence of antisocial behavior, thereby motivating school authorities to address the
problem.
• Develop clear goals and objectives for improving school discipline, well supported by the
entire school community. This should include guidelines to help the school to identify,
prevent and deal with incidents of problem behavior.
• Consistently and continuously communicate, teach, and reward school-wide behavioral
expectations (compliance to adult requests, positive peer and teacher interactions, and
school effort).
• Provide continuous and ongoing performance-based feedback to staff members regarding
the type, location, time and referring staff persons of office discipline referrals and other
indicators of problem behavior. Encourage shared problem solving and recognition of
reductions or improvements.

Jeffrey Sprague and Robert Horner. Do not distribute without permission.